Mans Court case may have cracked open Fraud of D.C. Federal Jurisdiction

There was a quite a bit of paper filed in Trowbridge, Jr v. Lew, et al today

http://www.open-public-records.com/c...s-19054099.htm

• Court Name:	U.S. Civil Court Records for the Southern District of Texas
  Case Number:	4:16-cv-02747
  Party Name:	Trowbridge, Jr. v. Lew et al
  Filing Type:	Civil [Response in Opposition to Motion]
  Date Published:	October 05, 2016

• Court Name:	U.S. Civil Court Records for the Southern District of Texas
  Case Number:	4:16-cv-02747
  Party Name:	Trowbridge, Jr. v. Lew et al
  Filing Type:	Civil [Response]
  Date Published:	October 05, 2016

• Court Name:	U.S. Civil Court Records for the Southern District of Texas
  Case Number:	4:16-cv-02747
  Party Name:	Trowbridge, Jr. v. Lew et al
  Filing Type:	Civil [Remand]
  Date Published:	October 05, 2016

• Court Name:	U.S. Civil Court Records for the Southern District of Texas
  Case Number:	4:16-cv-02747
  Party Name:	Trowbridge, Jr. v. Lew et al
  Filing Type:	Civil [Objections]
  Date Published:	October 05, 2016

• Court Name:	U.S. Civil Court Records for the Southern District of Texas
  Case Number:	4:16-cv-02747
  Party Name:	Trowbridge, Jr. v. Lew et al
  Filing Type:	Civil [Expedite]
  Date Published:	September 28, 2016

• Court Name:	U.S. Civil Court Records for the Southern District of Texas
  Case Number:	4:16-cv-02747
  Party Name:	Trowbridge, Jr. v. Lew et al
  Filing Type:	Civil [Affidavit]
  Date Published:	September 28, 2016

• Court Name:	U.S. Civil Court Records for the Southern District of Texas
  Case Number:	4:16-cv-02747
  Party Name:	Trowbridge, Jr. v. Lew et al
  Filing Type:	Civil [Other Notice]
  Date Published:	September 27, 2016

• Court Name:	U.S. Civil Court Records for the Southern District of Texas
  Case Number:	4:16-cv-02747
  Party Name:	Trowbridge, Jr. v. Lew et al
  Filing Type:	Civil [Dismiss]
  Date Published:	September 21, 2016

• Court Name:	U.S. Civil Court Records for the Southern District of Texas
  Case Number:	4:16-cv-02747
  Party Name:	Trowbridge, Jr. v. Lew et al
  Filing Type:	Civil [Notice of Appearance]
  Date Published:	September 19, 2016

• Court Name:	U.S. Civil Court Records for the Southern District of Texas
  Case Number:	4:16-cv-02747
  Party Name:	Trowbridge, Jr. v. Lew et al
  Filing Type:	Civil [Certificate of Interested Parties]
  Date Published:	September 12, 2016

• Court Name:	U.S. Civil Court Records for the Southern District of Texas
  Case Number:	4:16-cv-02747
  Party Name:	Trowbridge, Jr. v. Lew et al
  Filing Type:	Civil [Notice of Removal]
  Date Published:	September 12, 2016

"Federal jurisdiction" is very simple to understand:

army.mil + usmarshals.gov = government force over you

These idiotic paper filings would be amusing if not for being so pathetically sad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crimethink

"Federal jurisdiction" is very simple to understand:

army.mil + usmarshals.gov = government force over you

These idiotic paper filings would be amusing if not for being so pathetically sad.

---

We see more and more of it as time goes by. They jailed 77 year old Joe Robertson in Montana for building a reservoir on his private land with all,the necessary state permits. Supposedly some of the soil he excavated from the pond poluted the creek which eventually connects to the Platte River, the Missouri, and ultimately the Mississippi. The EPA CHARGED him with violating the clean water act.

In Trowbridge's case,he has had them stalemated for the last 2 years. They haven't figured out how to handle him yet. If they let him win it will unravel 150 years of federal convictions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

In Trowbridge's case,he has had them stalemated for the last 2 years. They haven't figured out how to handle him yet. If they let him win it will unravel 150 years of federal convictions.

---

The reason they haven't stomped on him yet is two-fold: 1) he isn't a real threat...yet; 2) the filing fees he has to pay as tribute are hefty. It's a good cash flow:

http://www.txs.uscourts.gov/page/FeeSchedule

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crimethink

The reason they haven't stomped on him yet is two-fold: 1) he isn't a real threat...yet; 2) the filing fees he has to pay as tribute are hefty.

---

Yes, he has had cases all the way to the Supreme Court and back, currently there are 4 on the docket in the Texas District. I imagine he has put a small fortune in their coffers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

Yes, he has had cases all the way to the Supreme Court and back, currently there are 4 on the docket in the Texas District. I imagine he has put a small fortune in their coffers.

---

The shyster in the black dress almost never sees these documents. A clerk stamps them, and they're put in a folder. A small percentage of the time the clerk will follow a "standing order" and issue some sort of "response," usually a form with check boxes.

The clerks probably a get good laugh from it all, paying good money while accomplishing absolutely nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crimethink

paying good money while accomplishing absolutely nothing.

---

Money is a fiction. When you pay 'the court' in fiction you should expect repayment in kind.

I think this fits this tread because Dr. Trowbridge is fighting the. same corruption in the courts as the Bundys et al.

Did the Congress create the legislative United States District Courts to bypass the constitutional separation of powers?

Was Congress reason for doing this, in their ever growing lust for more power over the states and people, to prosecute UNITED STATES CITIZENS for various federal crimes, income tax violations, gun law violations or in the Malheur Protest prosecute American cowboys for educating people about the constitution under the guise of "impeding federal officers?

I posted the following on Outpost to Freedom blog and the RangeFire hoping some legal types will weigh in with their assessments.

Besides the fact that Oregon did not cede jurisdiction there is another question.
Does the constitution grant the US District Court authority giving it the capacity to take jurisdiction in Harney County Oregon? Are thes administrative courts part of the DOJ in the executive branch?

USC Title 28 Chapter 5 (United States District Courts) Section 85 (Jurisdiction) lists the jurisdiction of the courts. Each listing is CIVIL.

Did the Congress effectively bypass the separation powers when it created these United States District Courts with the exception of the court in Hawaii and the District of Columbia? (USC Title 28 Chapter 5)?

Article III courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Those limits are defined in Article III and do not include criminal and civil trials.

The Article IV district courts are courts of general jurisdiction. Nowhere in the constitution are they given authority to take jurisdiction in Oregon and Nevada.

I suspect the Congress created these courts specifically to bypass the separation of powers. Not being under the judicial branch, they fall under the DOJ in the administrative branch. That explains why no one gets a fair trial and the constitution cannot be discussed or ruled upon.

Further investigation will show their jurisdiction only extends to the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, a territory and the insular possessions.

All “United States District Courts” are territorial and/or “legislative courts” that may only operate as administrative rather than Constitutional or Common Law courts. Nearly all of the courts in our federal system are “United States District Courts”. In fact, the only Constitutional or common law district courts in the country United States exist in Hawaii and the District of Columbia. This is confirmed by looking at the Notes under 28 U.S.C. §88, which says for the District of Columbia:
“It is consonant with the ruling of the Supreme Court in O’Donoghue v. United States, 1933, 53 S.Ct. 740, 289 U.S. 516, 77 L.Ed. 1356, that the (then called) Supreme Court and Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia are constitutional courts of the United States, ordained and established under article III of the Constitution, Congress enacted that the Court of Appeals ”shall hereafter be known as the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia”

The Notes section under 28 U.S.C. §91for Hawaii say the following:
“Section 9(a) of Pub. L. 86-3 provided that: ”The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii established by and existing under title 28 of the United States Code shall thence forth be a court of the United States with judicial power derived from article III, section 1, of the Constitution of the United States”
All district courts other than Hawaii and the District of Columbia are, by implication administrative courts, which means that they are territorial courts which may not rule on constitutional rights. Even courts that are Art. III can only exercise that power when the judges are also Article III judges, which few judges are. There is a great deal of confusion over this issue within the legal profession and few lawyers fully understand the implications of this distinction in our experience.

All of the territorial “United States District Courts” are listed in Title 28, Part I, Chapter 5. The notes at the beginning of this chapter indicate the following:
28 U.S. Code § 88 – District of Columbia
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes
Historical and Revision Notes
This section expressly makes the District of Columbia a judicial district of the United States.
Section 41 of this title also makes the District of Columbia a judicial circuit of the United States.
Section 11–305 of the District of Columbia Code, 1940 ed., provides that the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia shall possess the same powers and exercise the same jurisdiction as the district courts of the United States, and shall be deemed a court of the United States.

It is consonant with the ruling of the Supreme Court in O’Donoghue v. United States, 1933, 53 S.Ct. 740, 289 U.S. 516, 77 L.Ed. 1356, that the (then called) Supreme Court and Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia are constitutional courts of the United States, ordained and established under article III of the Constitution, Congress enacted that the Court of Appeals “shall hereafter be known as the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia” (Act of June 7, 1934, 48 Stat. 926); and also changed the name of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia to “district court of the United States for the District of Columbia” (Act of June 25, 1936, 49 Stat. 1921). In Federal Trade Commission v. Klesner, 1927, 47 S.Ct. 557, 274 U.S. 145, 71 L.Ed. 972, the Supreme Court ruled:
“* * * The parallelism between the Supreme Court of the District [of Columbia] and the Court of Appeals of the District [of Columbia], on the one hand, and the district courts of the United States and the circuit courts of appeals, on the other, in the consideration and disposition of cases involving what among the States would be regarded as within Federal jurisdiction, is complete.” See also to the same effect Clairborne-Annapolis Ferry Company v. United States, 1932, 52 S.Ct. 440, 285 U.S. 382, 76 L.Ed. 808.

28 U.S. Code § 91 – Hawaii
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes
Historical and Revision Notes
Court of the United States; District Judges
Pub. L. 86–3, § 9(a), Mar. 18, 1959, 73 Stat. 8, provided that:
“The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii established by and existing under title 28 of the United States Code shall thence forth be a court of the United States with judicial power derived from article III, section 1, of the Constitution of the United States: Provided, however, That the terms of office of the district judges for the district of Hawaii then in office shall terminate upon the effective date of this section and the President, pursuant to sections 133 and 134 of title 28, United States Code, as amended by this Act, shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, two district judges for the said district who shall hold office during good behavior.”
Section 9 of Pub. L. 86–3 provided in part that subsec. (a) of that section should be effective upon the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union.

28 U.S. Code § 108 – Nevada
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 174 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 94, 36 Stat. 1118; June 24, 1930, ch. 595, 46 Stat. 806; Nov. 15, 1945, ch. 482, 59 Stat. 582).
Changes in arrangement and phraseology were made.
Amendments
1990—Pub. L. 101–650 substituted “, Reno, Ely, and Lovelock” for “and Reno”.

28 U.S. Code § 117 – Oregon
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 183 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 102, 36 Stat. 1122; Nov. 6, 1945, ch. 447, 59 Stat. 555).
Provisions relating to appointment and residence of deputies by the clerk and marshal, and maintenance of offices by said officers, were omitted as covered by sections 541 [see 561], 542 [see 561], and 751 of this title.
Changes in arrangement and phraseology were made.
Amendments
2000—Pub. L. 106–518 substituted “Eugene or Springfield” for “Eugene”.
1970—Pub. L. 91–272 provided for holding court at Coquille.
1950—Act Aug. 3, 1950, provided for holding court at Eugene.

Reading further into our nations history that is EXACTLY what Congress did. Article III and Article IV courts no longer exists. Any courts that exists now are strictly Administrative courts.

I believe that's why Marc Stevens has had some success in challenging jurisdiction in traffic and tax courts. The courts cannot prove it has jurisdiction because it does not have it as they are not Article III / IV courts.

http://redbeckman.com/videos.html

https://youtu.be/wNHcKnjrSNE

1. We The People Are Above The Government

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNHcKnjrSNE[/VIDEO


2. Solution To Take Back America For The People
https://youtu.be/XWz0I0WgiSA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWz0I0WgiSA


3. Grand Jury - IRS - Voluntary Compliance
https://youtu.be/35Ga_1tuRC4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35Ga_1tuRC4



4. Democracy vs. Republic
https://youtu.be/Qszo8u1m9ZQ

https://youtu.be/Qszo8u1m9ZQ



5. Constitutional Republic Explained
https://youtu.be/keH0AeszJyk

https://youtu.be/keH0AeszJyk



6. Trust In Government Betrayed
https://youtu.be/18nPYoXYCyI

https://youtu.be/18nPYoXYCyI



7. Truth About Grand Juries
https://youtu.be/OkfCFSUGT_g

https://youtu.be/OkfCFSUGT_g



8. IRS Unconstitutional Under The Executive Branch
https://youtu.be/gILR8XKKkac

https://youtu.be/gILR8XKKkac



9. Grand Jury & Trial Jury Powers
https://youtu.be/bAFamSiagwU

https://youtu.be/bAFamSiagwU



10. Investments In The Future
https://youtu.be/DoZ01yH1OGs

https://youtu.be/DoZ01yH1OGs



11. Grand Jury & Jury Nullification
https://youtu.be/PB5adDmAKYo

https://youtu.be/PB5adDmAKYo



12. 16th Amendment - The Law That Never Was
https://youtu.be/grjmnkj7LT4

https://youtu.be/grjmnkj7LT4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

Reading further into our nations history that is EXACTLY what Congress did. Article III and Article IV courts no longer exists. Any courts that exists now are strictly Administrative courts.

I believe that's why Marc Stevens has had some success in challenging jurisdiction in traffic and tax courts. The courts cannot prove it has jurisdiction because it does not have it as they are not Article III / IV courts.

---

But "US citizens", that's you Ares, being subjects to Congress's jurisdiction do not fall with the realm of "The People". So naturally they will fall in government administrative courts.
The government hasn't done anything wrong.....its you not understanding where you stand with the government.

And you have done this all yourself...to yourself!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7th trump

But "US citizens", that's you Ares, being subjects to Congress's jurisdiction do not fall with the realm of "The People". So naturally they will fall in government administrative courts.
The government hasn't done anything wrong.....its you not understanding where you stand with the government.

And you have done this all yourself...to yourself!

---

It was the government through acts of congress that removed the Article III and Article IV courts. You consider yourself of "We The People" but do yourself have access to an Article III court for redress of grievances?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

Reading further into our nations history that is EXACTLY what Congress did. Article III and Article IV courts no longer exists. Any courts that exists now are strictly Administrative courts.

I believe that's why Marc Stevens has had some success in challenging jurisdiction in traffic and tax courts. The courts cannot prove it has jurisdiction because it does not have it as they are not Article III / IV courts.

---

Following these federal cases and looking at some of their statutes has lead me to conclude these courts have to be under the executive branch because the were not created under the Article III judicial section of the constitution. I believe that in itself would strenghten the argument their jurisdiction would be limited to the federal enclaves, District of Columbia etc., and the administrative bureaucracies and agencies of the United States. About the same time Congress created these courts they passed the adminstrative procedures act abdicating their authority to these federal agencies.

Dr. Trowbridge has added a long awaited update to his continuing battle

https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.com

Fatal defect in every federal case since March 1, 1991; all such decisions and judgments void

JANUARY 16, 2017SUPREMECOURTCASE

As shown herein below with conclusive evidence, the above headline is not an exaggeration but an accurate assessment of the situation.

“The judicial Power of the United States”
That certain constitution ordained and established September 17, 1787, and implemented March 4, 1789, Independence Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (the “Constitution”), at Art. III, § 1 provides, in pertinent part, that “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish,” and at § 2, cl. 1 thereof the limited types of cases and controversies to which the judicial power shall extend.

The Constitution at Art. VI, cl. 3 provides in pertinent part for the prevention of arbitrary exercise or abuse of “The judicial Power of the United States,” id., by way of requirement that all justices and judges of the United States be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution; to wit:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; . . .”

Justices and Judges’ Oath of Office
In respect of the above requirement of Art. VI, cl. 3 of the Constitution, Congress on September 24, 1789, in “An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States,” 1 Stat. 73 (the “Judiciary Act”), at 76 supply the oath or affirmation needed for federal justices and judges to be authorized to exercise the judicial power of the United States; to wit:
“Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, That the justices of the Supreme Court, and the district judges, before they proceed to execute the duties of their respective offices, shall take the following oath or affirmation, to wit : ‘I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as , according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.’”

Congress 159 years later on June 25, 1948, at 28 U.S.C. § 453 Oath of justices and judges of the United States, 62 Stat. 907, amend the language of the preamble to the oath provided in Section 8 of the Judiciary Act and, cosmetically, the text of said oath; to wit:
“Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office : ‘I, _____ _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _____ according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.’”

For the next 42+ years justices and judges of the United States who take the 28 U.S.C. § 453, 62 Stat. 907, oath are “bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution,” Judiciary Act at 76 (just like all other federal jurists who came before them), and therefore authorized to exercise “The judicial Power of the United States,” Constitution, Art. III, § 1, and discharge and perform the duties of their respective offices.

Congress Alter Materially the Oath of Justices and Judges
Congress on December 1, 1990, however, in Public Law 101–650, at section 404 thereof, 104 Stat. 5124—effective 90 days later, March 1, 1991 (104 Stat. 5124 at § 407)—alter materially by way of amendment, the oath at 28 U.S.C. § 453, 62 Stat. 907, so as to relieve all justices and judges of the United States of any duty of fidelity to the Constitution; to wit:
“Sec. 404. Amendment to Oath of Justices and Judges.
“Section 453 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking out ‘according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to’ and inserting ‘under’”. Pub. L. 101–650, 104 Stat. 5089, 5124, December 1, 1990.

Upon amendment, 28 U.S.C. § 453 Oath of justices and judges of the United States, 104 Stat. 5124, provides:
“Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: ‘I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.’

“(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 907; Pub. L. 101–650, title IV, § 404, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5124.)”
Because there is no provision of the Constitution that requires a justice or judge of the United States to discharge or perform any duties, there are no duties under the Constitution incumbent upon any such justice or judge to discharge or perform; meaning: Mention of the Constitution in the 1990 amended oath, 28 U.S.C. § 453, 104 Stat. 5124, supra, is superfluous and may be omitted from said oath without changing its meaning.

To prevent the fracturing of the federal judicial system were one set of justices and judges to discharge and perform their respective duties agreeably to the Constitution and the other not: Between December 1, 1990, and February 28, 1991, all sitting and newly commissioned justices and judges of the United States take the new oath of office, 104 Stat. 5124, leaving, on March 1, 1991, no justice or judge of the United States bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution—only the laws of the United States, i.e., the statutes of Congress.

“The emperor has no clothes”
The 1990 oath, 104 Stat. 5124, severs the connection between the federal judiciary and the Constitution; meaning: As of March 1, 1991, officers of the federal judiciary have no obligation to discharge or perform the duties of their respective offices “agreeably to the Constitution” (62 Stat. 907), and the former judicial-branch officersare now legislative-branch officers under the exclusive control of Congress.

“Plus peccat auctor quam actor. The instigator of a crime is worse than he who perpetrates it” (John Bouvier, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third Revision (Being the Eighth Edition), revised by Francis Rawle (St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1914) (hereinafter “Bouvier’s”), p. 2153)—and the instigators of the takeover of the federal courts of limited jurisdiction by municipal judges masquerading as Article III judges and usurping exercise of general jurisdiction throughout the Union, are the Members of Congress.

The jurisdiction of federal courts of limited jurisdiction and the original (de jure) Department of Justice, 16 Stat. 162, is co-extensive with the legislative powers of Congress; to wit:
“Those who framed the constitution [sic], intended to establish a government complete for its own purposes, supreme within its sphere, and capable of acting by its own proper powers. They intended it to consist of three co-ordinate branches, legislative, executive, and judicial. In the construction of such a government, it is an obvious maxim, ‘that the judicial power should be competent to give efficacy to the constitutional laws of the Legislature.’ [Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. Rep. 414] The judicial authority, therefore, must be co-extensive with the legislative power. . . . [The Federalist, No. 80; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. Rep. 384]” Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat., 738, 808 (1824).

Because Congress enjoy only limited legislative power (subject-matter legislative power only) throughout the Union, the federal courts and Department of Justice are authorized to exercise only limited jurisdiction (subject-matter jurisdiction only) throughout the Union; to wit:
“As we have repeatedly said: ‘Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute . . .’” Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 489 (2004) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 611 U. S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted)).

The above is why Petitioner is so persistent: Justices and judges ensconced in federal courts of limited jurisdiction are usurping exercise of territorial jurisdiction (an aspect of general jurisdiction) and entering judgment against, directing the disposition of, and committing theft under color of authority of, Petitioner’s property in Montgomery and Tyler County, Texas—geographic area in which Texas possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over property located there; to wit:
“The several States of the Union are not, it is true, in every respect independent, many of the right and powers which originally belonged to them being now vested in the government created by the Constitution. But, except as restrained and limited by that instrument, they possess and exercise the authority of independent States, and the principles of public law to which we have referred are applicable to them. One of these principles is that every State possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property within its territory. . . .” Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 722 (1878).

Notwithstanding that the federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, Rasul, supra, they are populated by municipal judges of the so-called “United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15), “a Federal corporation,” id., by the name of District of Columbia Municipal Corporation, who are usurping exercise of general jurisdiction in Montgomery and Tyler County, Texas, and elsewhere throughout the Union.

Justices and judges of the United States have used their position of trust to betray their creators, the American People, by overriding their will as declared at Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution, that all judicial officers of the United States shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution, and thereby legislating the Constitution out of the legal process; to wit:
“The Congress as the instrumentality of sovereignty is endowed with certain powers to be exerted on behalf of the people in the manner and with the effect the Constitution ordains. The Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the people to override their will as thus declared.” Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935).

Bearing of the 1990 Oath on Every Federal Case since March 1, 1991
Whereas, as of March 1, 1991, no federal justice or judge is bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution: As of that date, every justice and judge of the United States is barred by Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution from exercising “The judicial Power of the United States,” Constitution, Art. III, § 1, or entering a decision or judgment in any federal court case.

There being no constitutional authority for any Supreme Court decision or civil or criminal judgment in any federal court: Every such decision or judgment since March 1, 1991, is void.

Due Process of Law and Void Judgments
The essence of due process of law is constitutional authority; to wit:
“Due process of law is process according to the law of the land. . . . “. . . Due process of law in the latter [the Fifth Article of Amendment to the Constitution] refers to that law of the land which derives its authority from the legislative powers conferred upon Congress by the Constitution of the United States, exercised within the limits therein prescribed and interpreted according to the principles of the common law. . . .” Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 3 Sup. Ct. 111, 292, 28 L. Ed. 232 (1884).

Any justice or judge of the United States who enters a decision or judgment in a federal case without the authority to exercise “The judicial Power of the United States,” Constitution, Art. III, § 1—and this includes every Supreme Court decision and United States District Court judgment since March 1, 1991—does so without the authority of the Constitution and thereby denies the litigants due process of law and manufactures a void judgment.

A void judgment is an utter nullity, of no legal force or effect, and anyone who is concerned with the execution of a void judgment is considered in law as a trespasser; to wit:
“A void judgment which includes judgment entered by a court which . . . lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment . . . can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally . . .” Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. 1999).

“Where a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide any question which occurs in the cause, and whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgments, until reversed, are regarded as binding in every other court. But if it act without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and form no bar to a remedy sought in opposition to them, even prior to a reversal. They constitute no justification, and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences are considered in law as trespassers.” Elliott v. Peirsol, 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 328, 329 (1828).

“A judgment is void if the court that rendered it . . . acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. Margoles v. Johns, 660 F.2d 291 (7th Cir. 1981) cert. denied, 455 U.S. 909, 102 S.Ct. 1256, 71 L.Ed.2d 447 (1982); In re Four Seasons Securities Laws Litigation, 502 F.2d 834 (10th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1034, 95 S.Ct. 516, 42 L.Ed.2d 309 (1975). Mere error does not render the judgment void unless the error is of constitutional dimension. Simer v. Rios, 661 F.2d 655 (7th Cir.1981), cert. denied, sub nom Simer v. United States, 456 U.S. 917, 102 S.Ct. 1773, 72 L.Ed.2d 177 (1982).” Klugh v. United States, 620 F.Supp. 892 (1985).

“We believe that a judgment, whether in a civil or criminal case, reached without due process of law is without jurisdiction and void . . . because the United States is forbidden by the fundamental law to take either life, liberty or property without due process of law, and its courts are included in this prohibition. . . .” Bass v. Hoagland, 172 F.2d 205 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 338 U.S. 816, 70 S.Ct. 57, 94 L.Ed. 494 (1949).

[I]“f a ‘judgment is void, it is a per se abuse of discretion for a district court to deny a movant’s motion to vacate the judgment.’ United States v. Indoor Cultivation Equip. from High Tech Indoor Garden Supply, 55 F.3d 1311, 1317 (7th Cir.1995). A judgment is void and should be vacated pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) if ‘the court that rendered the judgment acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law.’ Id. at 1316 (citations omitted) . . .” Price v. Wyeth Holdings Corp., 505 F.3d 624 (7th Cir., 2007).

“[D]enying a motion to vacate a void judgment is a per se abuse of discretion.” Burrell v. Henderson, et al, 434 F.3d, 826, 831 (6th Cir., 2006).

Ironically, the above post-March 1, 1991, judgments addressing the subject of void judgments, are themselves void for failure of the judge entering his respective judgment to bind himself by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution, as required by the Constitution at Art. III, § 1, a denial of due process of law.

Update on Three Cases Since Previous Post, September 14, 2016

1. Action at equity: Petitioner sues 46 government-type defendants (trespassers) and one civilian defendant in a Texas court to recover Petitioner’s home stolen under color of authority by way of a previous void judgment in a federal court

Petitioner on August 11, 2016, files Petitioner’s Amended Original Petition in an action at equity in 284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas, Case No. 16-08-09232, for a constructive trust based on constructive fraud in a previous void judgment, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division Civil Action No. 4:14-cv-0027 (the “Houston Action at Law”), which defendant United States of America on September 12, 2016, removes and files as United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division Civil Action No. 4:16-cv-2747 (the “Houston Action at Equity”); the court on December 5, 2016, enters judgment against Petitioner (the plaintiff).

This was a high-intensity pre-trial proceeding, with 70 substantial docket entries over an 84-day span, which, combined with Petitioner’s two other ongoing federal cases, prevented Petitioner from being able to post anything until now.

Notice and Warning of Commercial Grace
Petitioner’s Amended Original Petition on pages iii–iv gives an extra-judicial (commercial) Notice and Warning of Commercial Grace to every actor concerned with the execution of the void judgment in the Houston Action at Law, as to the penalties should said case be removed to federal court and Petitioner be denied due process of law or foreclosed from adequate remedy.

Petitioner has been denied due process of law.

Irrespective of whether Petitioner realizes adequate remedy in this case or not: Every actor concerned with the void judgment in the Houston Action at Law (before, during, or after), which now also comprehends every actor involved in the Houston Action at Equity void judgment, is a trespasser and personally liable to Petitioner.
Petitioner’s Amended Original Petition evidently set off numerous alarms—because the deputy clerks, USDOJ attorneys, and judge, in concert, pulled every dirty (contrary to law or good morals) trick in the book to try to defeat Petitioner.

Any reader who tries to digest the docket or record (hyperlinked below) of this case, however, may have trouble understanding because there is contradictory data throughout, and seemingly two different proceedings underway—one prosecuted by Petitioner with factual contentions supported by conclusive evidence, and another being “defended” by counsel for defendants with factual contentions and denials of Petitioner’s allegations and claims, but with no or immaterial evidentiary support; a situation exacerbated by wholesale confusion in the docket intentionally manufactured by the deputy clerks, evidently in the hope of befuddling Petitioner (and anyone else who tries to make sense of things) and preventing Petitioner from keeping track of counsel for defendants’ multiple filings and possibly failing to respond timely to one or more and thereby losing by default.

The deputy clerks routinely and deliberately (a) so-misnamed filings or excluded part or all of the titles thereof, that Petitioner had to file in the record requests for the deputy clerks to correct the titles of docket entries, (b) withheld entering filings on the docket for days at a time (to give counsel for defendants an advantage), (c) split up a key filing into two separate docket numbers, 36 and 37, (d) entered items on the docket out of sequence, and (e) refused to enter on the docket seven of Petitioner’s filings, requiring that Petitioner file special requests of the clerk to enter on the docket the filings previously received.

Counsel for defendant United States (“a Federal corporation,” 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15)) and United States of America (a sovereign republic, Constitution)—the same attorney—filed a Rule 12(b)(1) and (6) motion to have the case dismissed with prejudice, but failed to present evidence that proved a single one of his allegations or claims, and likewise failed to disprove a single allegation or claim in Petitioner’s Amended Original Petition.

Petitioner from time to time established on the record with evidence, certain facts and failures of defendants, and thereafter counsel for defendant United States and United States of America (same attorney) would file a document asserting other facts contradicting those established by Petitioner with evidence and treat of said failures as though they had never happened, but for which assertions said counsel provided no evidence in support.

For example, if a government-type defendant fails to answer or otherwise respond to a petition / complaint as provided in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, i.e., within the statutory 60-day period, said defendant is in default and foreclosed from participating in the proceeding.

When Petitioner in Docket Nos. 36 and 37 (filing split up by deputy clerks for no reason) filed the return of service (process server’s certificate of service of summons and complaint on a defendant) for 44 defendants, establishing that 41 government-type defendants had failed to answer or otherwise respond to Petitioner’s Amended Original Petition within 60 days of service and were in default, counsel for defendant United States of America—with no evidentiary support—thereafter filed in Docket Nos. 41, 42, and 58, a purported notice of “entry of appearance and joinder” in the case for the same 41 defendants, a procedural impossibility.

Counsel for defendant United States and United States of America and the attorney representing the one civilian defendant collectively committed hundreds of violations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for which, in any other case, they would have been subjected to an immediate order-to-show-cause hearing as to why they should not be sanctioned for such egregious acts.

Because everything in Petitioner’s Amended Original Petition is true and supported with conclusive evidence, counsel for defendants could only present immaterial arguments and evidence propounding the supremacy of the Federal corporation known as the “United States” (28 U.S.C. § 3002(15)), falsely representing that it is the same thing as the sovereign republic of the United States of America (Constitution), and touting the “immunity” of all its corporate employees (judges of the United States, USDOJ attorneys, etc.) and private-sector workers of the Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service.

The record of the Houston Action at Equity is hyperlinked below, but Petitioner admonishes the reader that there is no meaningful knowledge to be gained from reading it; the filings of counsel for defendants are crafted to deceive; everything Petitioner has to say is presented in coherent form, supported by evidence, in Petitioner’s Amended Original Petition.

The M.O. of United States Department of Justice attorneys is to ignore material facts and evidence presented by an adversary that work against their objective, and fabricate another scenario, irrespective of lack of evidence of facts and their failures to respond, that supports their position, which their co-worker municipal tag-team partner, the judge, then uses to paint a negative picture of the adversary and enter judgment against him.

False denigrations of a particular litigant by one judge are then repeated at every opportunity by subsequent judges and United States Department of Justice attorneys who happen to come in contact with the same litigant, building up by repetition a “history” of negative reports against the litigant which an innocent reader would be inclined to take as factual and conclusive.

“The judge doth protest too much, methinks”
Continued below . . .

https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.com

continued from above


“The judge doth protest too much, methinks”
“Qui jure suo utitur, nemini facit injuriam. He who uses his legal rights harms no one.” Bouvier’s, p. 2157.
In this instance, the judge’s Final Judgment and Preclusion Order (Docket No. 70) paints an extremely nasty picture of Petitioner—evidently for having the audacity to exercise Petitioner’s right to property and report organized criminal activity among judges of the United States and officers of the United States Department of Justice—and purports to enjoin Petitioner from ever taking up the subject matter of the Houston Action at Law again in any other court, state or federal—unless, of course, Petitioner wants to file an appeal with the same appeal judges who conspired with another judge in the same courthouse in the Houston Action at Law and stole Petitioner’s home under color of authority, all of whom are defendants in this suit!

The judge in the Houston Action at Equity evidently apparently is terrified of taking the rap for letting Petitioner expose the ultimate Achilles’ heel of the organized criminal activity of justices and judges of the United States and attorneys of the United States Department of Justice (no authority to exercise “The judicial Power of the United States,” Constitution, Art. VI, cl. 3) and hopes to silence Petitioner with his Final Judgment and Preclusion Order (Docket No. 70).

Bottom line: The judge is a municipal judge of the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation, “a Federal corporation, ” 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15), doing business as “United States,” id., and under the exclusive control of Congress and knowingly and willfully usurping exercise of general jurisdiction outside his territory (the District of Columbia) and culpable for treason to the Constitution; to wit:
“We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given [by the Constitution], than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. . . .” Cohens v Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 434 (1821).

The Final Judgment and Preclusion Order is a void judgment.
Knowing that his Final Judgment and Preclusion Order is a void judgment, that Petitioner is authorized by law to move to have it vacated, and that it is an abuse of discretion for him to refuse to vacate a void judgment upon motion: The judge sought to prevent Petitioner from filing a motion to vacate the Final Judgment and Preclusion Order as void by ordering the clerk on page 7 of the Final Judgment and Preclusion Order (Docket No. 70), to return to Petitioner, unfiled, any further motions received from Petitioner.

In respect of the judge’s usurpation, by way of the Final Judgment and Preclusion Order, of “The judicial Power of the United States,” Constitution, Art. III, § 1, Petitioner on January 10, 2017, filed with the Montgomery County District Attorney and January 11, 2017, with the Harris County District Attorney, an Affidavit of Information: Criminal Complaint for Public Notice Filing, the subject of which is said judge.

Petitioner then on January 12, 2017, sent a note to the deputy clerk requesting delivery to said judge of a copy of the filed Affidavit of Information (criminal complaint) and the original of Petitioner’s “Motion to Vacate the Final Judgment and Preclusion Order (Dkt. #70) as Void for Ewing Werlein, Jr.’s Lack of Authority to exercise the Judicial Power of the United States or enter Judgment in this Case,” hyperlinked infra.

Docket, Houston Action at Equity

Record, Houston Action at Equity (97 MB)

Note to Deputy Clerk, copy of Criminal Complaint (January 10, 2017), and Motion to Vacate Final Judgment and Preclusion Order as Void (January 12, 2017) (3 MB)

1. Action at law: Plaintiff United States of America sues Petitioner in Lufkin action at law to foreclose tax liens against Petitioner’s property in Tyler County, Texas

Plaintiff United States of America on July 1, 2014 (two and a half years ago), files an action at law against Petitioner in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division Civil Action No. 9:14-CV-138 (the “Lufkin Action at Law”) to foreclose on federal tax liens against Petitioner’s ranch in Tyler County, Texas; judge rules against Petitioner March 3, 2016.

When Petitioner (the defendant in this particular case) on September 15, 2015, demands the provision of the Constitution that gives plaintiff United States of America to capacity to take jurisdiction and enter judgments, orders, and decrees in favor of the United States arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt in the geographic area occupied by the body politic of Tyler County, Texas (where Petitioner’s real property is located and Petitioner is a resident), counsel for plaintiff United States of America go silent (see post of October 28, 2015, infra) and remain so for the duration of the case, which ends March 3, 2016, five and half months thereafter.

Following entry of final judgment against Petitioner (the defendant), United States Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin on April 21, 2016, enters his “Order of Sale and to Vacate Property (April 21, 2016)”; whereupon Petitioner on June 13, 2016, serves Petitioner’s extra-judicial (commercial) Demand, Notice, and Warning of Commercial Grace on Keith F. Giblin and the other two federal judges and two United States Department of Justice attorneys involved in the Lufkin Action at Law.

After seven months of silence since his original Order of Sale and to Vacate Property, United States Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin on November 28, 2016, enters his “Amended Order of Sale and to Vacate Property.”
Petitioner’s ranch apparently is for sale at this writing—but Petitioner on January 13, 2017, files Petitioner’s “Motion to Vacate the Final Judgment (Dkt. #67-1) as Void for Michael H. Schneider’s Lack of Authority to Exercise the Judicial Power of the United States or Enter Judgment in this Case,” hyperlinked infra.

Motion to Vacate Final Judgment as Void (January 13, 2017)

1. Action at equity: Petitioner sues Lufkin Division judge who enters “Order of Sale and to Vacate Property” in Tyler County, Texas court to quiet title

Shortly after United States Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin on April 21, 2016, enters his Order of Sale and to Vacate Property in the above Lufkin Action at Law, Petitioner on May 12, 2016, files an action at equity in 88th District Court of Tyler County, Texas, Case No. 23,967, against United States Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin, to quiet title to the real property that is the object of the Order of Sale and to Vacate Property in the Lufkin Action at Law, and defendant Keith F. Giblin on June 6, 2016, removes and files said case as United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division Civil Action No. 9:16-cv-00086 (the “Lufkin Action at Equity”).

With almost nothing happening for the last seven months, Petitioner on January 13, 2017, files in the Lufkin Action at Equity “Plaintiff’s Objection to this Proceeding for Marcia A. Crone’s Lack of Authority to Exercise the Judicial Power of the United States or Enter Judgment in this Case; and Motion to Remand,” hyperlinked infra.

Docket, Lufkin Action at Equity

Record, Lufkin Action at Equity (13 MB)

Objection to Proceeding and Motion to Remand (January 13, 2017)
—

Conclusion
The judicial system of the United States is populated by justices and judges who despise or would prefer to eliminate the Constitution from their brand of jurisprudence (municipal law); e.g.:
“‘I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries — well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments),’ he wrote. . . .” The Washington Times, quoting United States Circuit Judge Richard Posner in “Judge Richard Posner: ‘No value’ in studying the U.S. Constitution,” June 27, 2016,

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/27/richard-posner-no-value-in-studying-us-constitutio/ (accessed August 4, 2016).

The reason Judge Posner can get away with such apparently treasonous remarks about the Constitution without risking impeachment is that he neither is bound by oath or affirmation to support it nor has any duties under it to discharge or perform nor has any duty to preserve, protect, support, or defend it—only to carry out the duties assigned to him by his for-profit corporate employer, the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation, “a Federal corporation,” 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15), doing business as “United States,” id., and managed by the Congress of the (corporate) “United States.”

Anyone who has taken an oath or affirmation to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution,” Texas Constitution, Article 16, Section 1, or “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” 5 U.S.C. § 3331, has a duty to protect and defend the Constitution against domestic enemies who, not being bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution, usurp exercise of “The judicial Power of the United States,” Constitution, Art. III, § 1, in a federal court of limited jurisdiction.

Irrespective of the myriad other discrepancies with justices and judges of the United States documented by Petitioner in the above-referenced cases over the last 35 months, the most fundamental of all is the lack of authority of any such justice or judge to exercise “The judicial Power of the United States,” id., or enter a decision or judgment in any case in any federal court of limited jurisdiction for failure to have bound himself by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution, as required by Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution.

The task before the American People is to demand and bring about restoration of an exclusively republican, not municipal, form of government throughout the Union, where Texas and every other member thereof is free from usurpation of exercise of territorial or personal jurisdiction within its territory by municipal justices or judges of the United States or officers of the United States Department of Justice, as contemplated by the Framers and established at Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution.

If it's not time to form a militia and take control of these miscreant scoundrels called judges, it is time to form our own common law courts under our own jural society.

It is apparent that the law they're using is the law of the Jolly Roger and they are pirates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigjon

If it's not time to form a militia and take control of these miscreant scoundrels called judges, it is time to form our own common law courts under our own jural society.

It is apparent that the law they're using is the law of the Jolly Roger and they are pirates.

---

You are not alone in your thinking. By using obscure treaties and judges not bound to the constitution agencies like EPA, ETC. enforce their regulation throughout the land where their constitutional jurisdiction is limited.

Quote:

---

The task before the American People is to demand and bring about restoration of an exclusively republican, not municipal, form of government throughout the Union, where Texas and every other member thereof is free from usurpation of exercise of territorial or personal jurisdiction within its territory by municipal justices or judges of the United States or officers of the United States Department of Justice, as contemplated by the Framers and established at Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution.

---

Quote:

---

The task before the American People is to demand and bring about restoration of an exclusively republican, not municipal, form of government throughout the Union, where Texas and every other member thereof is free from usurpation of exercise of territorial or personal jurisdiction within its territory by municipal justices or judges of the United States or officers of the United States Department of Justice, as contemplated by the Framers and established at Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution.

---

The problem is that the government itself is a corporation. The only way it stops being run like a corporation is to dispose of the corporation and go back to a Public law (instead of public policy) type of government. The only way that's going to happen is either it collapses under it's own weight, or violent revolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

The problem is that the government itself is a corporation. The only way it stops being run like a corporation is to dispose of the corporation and go back to a Public law (instead of public policy) type of government. The only way that's going to happen is either it collapses under it's own weight, or violent revolution.

---

created by Congress

Quote:

---

“Plus peccat auctor quam actor. The instigator of a crime is worse than he who perpetrates it” (John Bouvier, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third Revision (Being the Eighth Edition), revised by Francis Rawle (St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1914) (hereinafter “Bouvier’s”), p. 2153)—and the instigators of the takeover of the federal courts of limited jurisdiction by municipal judges masquerading as Article III judges and usurping exercise of general jurisdiction throughout the Union, are the Members of Congress.

---

John Parks Trowbridge Jr. 1/16/2017

I suspect the first of the two options "collapses under its own weight" is most likely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

created by Congress

John Parks Trowbridge Jr. 1/16/2017
[/FONT][/COLOR]
I suspect the first of the two options "collapses under its own weight" is most likely.

---

Agreed, no one has the stomach for Revolution. Even if there were one, the sheep are so mindlessly stupid that we would end up with a pure Democracy instead of Republic.

Dear Dr. Trowbridge…..


Posted on January 18, 2017by David Robinson
https://mainerepublicemailalert.file...anna.png?w=640
Judge Anna von Reitz

Dear Dr. Trowbridge…..
The Final Straw from Dr. John Parks Trowbridge: https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.com

I want all of my readers to read this updated posting from Dr. Trowbridge. For the past three years, he has been dueling with the so-called “federal courts” which are indeed nothing more than corporate municipal courts and are not vested with any authority related to us, our states, or our judicial powers.

Dr. Trowbridge has exposed the seedy underbelly of the “UNITED STATES” incorporated, which is nothing but a private, for-profit, mostly foreign-owned governmental services corporation operated by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on our shores, and he has also exposed the treasonous “Oath Tampering” of its Board of Directors, masquerading as members of a legitimate and lawfully organized “Congress” in 1991.

Indeed, John Parks Trowbridge has fought the good fight.

The one aspect of this circumstance which he has not taken into consideration is that all their actions against him and against other Americans depend upon falsification of public records (Birth Certificates) enabling these Grifters to “presume” that we are all “voluntarily submitting” to their municipal jurisdiction and that we are not owed the guarantees of the actual Constitution as a result.

We are not now and the vast majority of us have never been either “United States Citizens” (Territorial Citizens) nor “citizens of the United States” (Municipal CITIZENS)—but our names have been “registered” as such and we have been falsely held under the legal presumptions that apply in that foreign international jurisdiction as a result.

Unable to change or overcome our actual Constitution, the treasonous corporate vermin have instead connived to mischaracterize each one of us and to falsely claim that we have knowingly and willingly volunteered to serve as “citizens” in their “democracy” instead of living as non-citizen American state nationals in the republic we are owed.

And that fundamental fraud is what underlies all that Dr. Trowbridge and many other honest Americans have detected and experienced. These dishonest “courts” are not offering to try John Parks Trowbridge, but a corporate franchise ACCOUNT named after him: JOHN PARKS TROWBRIDGE or a bankrupt public utility franchise ACCOUNT also named after him: JOHN P. TROWBRIDGE by the perpetrators of this vast, convoluted scheme.

Congressional Record: June 13, 1967, pp. 15641-15646—— “A “citizen of the United States” is a civilly dead entity operating as a co-trustee and co-beneficiary of the PCT (Public Charitable Trust set up for the welfare of freed plantation slaves in the wake of the Civil War), the private constructive, cestui que vie trust of US Inc. under the 14th Amendment, which upholds the debt of the USA and US Inc. in Section 4.

There— once and for all — in plain English— is what a “citizen of the United States” is: a dead legal fiction entity presumed to be operating as a recipient of federal corporation welfare benefits in exchange for guaranteeing (underwriting and acting as a surety for) the debts of both the USA, Inc. and the US, Inc.

There, too, is the explanation of how you are being enslaved and “presumed upon” by these vermin. As a “citizen of the United States” you are on the hook for paying their debts and presumed to be operating a public trust franchise, a Cestui Que Vie constructive trust named after you under the JOHN PARKS TROWBRIDGE ACCOUNT or to be a bankrupt public transmitting utility franchise operating under the JOHN P. TROWBRIDGE ACCOUNT.

These criminals are getting away with these frauds and deceits and operating these “courts” as private debt collection agencies in behalf of the creditors of “JOHN PARKS TROWBRIDGE” (benefiting the US, Inc.) and “JOHN P.TROWBRIDGE” (which isn’t even a legal name for lack of specificity, benefiting the USA, Inc.) under color of law.

This has been going on for 150 years, ever since the close of the so-called “American Civil War” which was never declared and which was never ended by any peace treaty and which is, therefore, nothing but an illegal and illicit commercial mercenary action on our shores.

They have usurped upon our rightful jurisdiction—-the land and the undelegated portion of international jurisdiction, too—and promoted global enslavement and false indebtedness–via the pernicious practice of registering people as “things”—- Cestui Que Vie trusts and bankrupt public transmitting utility franchises—without the victim’s knowledge or consent. They seize upon us when we are babies in our cradles, force our Mothers to sign undisclosed contracts, and register our given names as franchises of corporations indebted to them.

And, because there is no law against enslaving a corporate fiction or robbing a corporate fiction or falsely arresting a corporate fiction, they have made very merry on our shores, operating this con game and substituting their private corporation for the public government we are owed.

Doctor Trowbridge, you are wasting your time making arguments “in Law” against vermin operating “at law”. In their fraudulent system of things, JOHN PARKS TROWBRIDGE has already consented to their municipal jurisdiction and submitted his body, soul, and any other assets he may have or earn to serve their benefit and not his own. In their fraudulent system of things, JOHN PARKS TROWBRIDGE has owed an insurmountable debt from the day of his birth—which is not the day you were born, but the date your given name was registered (filed) as property belonging to them and offered for the benefit of their creditors. In their fraudulent, foreign system of things, JOHN PARKS TROWBRIDGE is — by definition — a criminal, already convicted, and all that is left for them to discuss is how much he owes their masters and how long they may put him in jail.

And now, without further adieu, may we all agree that the Pope and the British Monarch and the Lord Mayor of London, all of whom have acted in Gross International Breach of Trust with respect to the America people since 1822, are to be recognized as criminals for creating and promoting and using and abusing this system of fraud and mischaracterization and operating it throughout the world? That they are to be universally condemned for the practice of preying upon helpless babies and alleging false and self-interested contracts against them and their parents?

Yes.

Dear Doctor Trowbridge, I could weep for the beauty of your logic and your research, because except for the erudition of the ignorant concerning what should be honored by any honest court— I know it is beyond hope to expect these private bill collection agencies being run as courts under color of law to respond to your complaint.

Even among the Bar Association Members bright enough to understand what you are saying, there isn’t the courage or the honor or the strength of character necessary for these men and women to denounce what has gone on here. To do so would be to admit their own guilt and without the power to guarantee their safety, you cannot expect them to yield. At most, you may expect a private settlement and the dismissal of any charges held against you, the return of your house, and a quick sideways scuttle like cockroaches fleeing the light.

And that, I think, is not your object, Sir. I think that you, like me, are determined to see the correction of this entire system of things and that nothing but an end to business as usual for these con artists will do.

We can see clearly now the price of being a US Citizen
bigjon



BarnacleBob,Yesterday at 5:47 PM
Over there:
LMAO.... "Traffic Court"!


What is TRAFFIC?


Commerce; trade; dealings in merchandise, bills, money, and the like. See Iu re Insurance Co. (D. C.) 96 Fed. 757; Levine v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 647. 34 S. W. 960; Feople v. Hamilton, 17 Misc. Rep. 11, 39 N. Y. Supp. 531; Merriam v. Langdon, 10 Conn. 471. (Blacks Law Dictionary)


http://thelawdictionary.org/traffic/


From the article:


"I asked her whether this was a criminal action or a civil action. She replied, “It’s hard to explain it in those terms.” I asked whether she intended to proceed under criminal procedural rules or in civil procedure. We would proceed under the “rules of criminal procedure,” she answered because this is a criminal case. I asked when I could expect to be charged, indicted, or have a probable cause determination. She replied that none of those events would occur because this is “a civil action.” So I could expect to be served with a complaint? No, no. As she had already explained, we would proceed under the criminal rules.


In short, municipal officials and their private contractors have at their disposal the powers of both criminal and civil law and are excused from the due process duties of both criminal and civil law. "

She replied, “It’s hard to explain it in those terms.”

"TRAFFIC COURT IS A PRIVATE CIVIL COMMERCIAL COURT!" Traffic is commerce!


This was an ad hoc summary proceeding in the PRIVATE "civil" jurisdiction of law merchant (lex merchatoria). “It’s hard to explain it in those terms.” Damn right it is, cause once you understand "law merchant" you can defend yourself.


Law Merchant is a private civil equity proceeding. The civil law of equity does not include criminal penalties, law merchant does! Thats the tip-off, when they say its a "civil proceeding that carries criminal penalties" you automatically KNOW your in a private law merchant ad hoc summary proceeding. Secondly, law merchant operates outside of the constitutions & constitutional protections, hence "due process" doesnt apply in law merchant! Most traffic laws & courts lack due process in toto.Thats the second indicator that your not in a judicial power court, but a private civil action. Thirdly these are not judicial criminal proceedings as there is never a court reporter on the record... same as any civil proceeding! Fourthly, in a judicial criminal proceeding the state must prove your guilty of a crime, in law merchant the defendant is presumed to be in dishonor (guilty) and must prove being innocent of dishonor.


These private civil courts blend & bend the rules of both civil & criminal procedure to keep the law merchant hidden from view. In most jurisdictions these private commercial proceedings use "Roberts Rules of Order" to conduct the fleecing.


In U.S. polity & law, law merchant has two names, 1. Public Policy & 2. The Uniform Commercial Code.


Below is a wonderful primer that explains the scam...


"The Dispatch of Merchants"


http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Articles/DispatchOfMerchants.htm#INTRODUCTION

==================

Take for instance "roadside confiscations" of cash & other goods... a complete lack of due process and its all committed under the civil law of law merchant. Your trafficking in traffic in a commercial vehicle, only commercial vehicles require a state title, registration & tags, your also carrying a commercial driver license (all dl's are various classes of commercial operators license) when your instantly detained and when the officer discovers $5000 in cash on the front seat he confiscates it as a civil forfeiture from your commercial vehicle. He created an instant "private" civil claim on the cash... If you want it back you must sue his CLAIM in his private civil court using his rules. Good luck! Its all perpetuated using law merchant.... Almost ALL state & federal statutes are commercial... and their scope has been traditionally been aimed at regulating a special & specific, not general class of commercial subjects, objects or activities... However, using law merchant the legislatures & their agents have been able to expand their reach into all areas of activities. All they need do is create a private civil case against the victim in commerce.... and the word TRAFFIC is key.


What is TRAFFIC?


Commerce; trade; dealings in merchandise, bills, money, and the like.


Do deal in merchandise, bills, money & the like? Of course you do... you buy groceries, gasoline, electricity, & clothing, etc. (dealing in merchandise) and you pay for these items with bills (debt) or money (coins) and the like (bank accounts, checks, money orders, credit cards, credit, etc.). In the perverted eyes of the law, YOU ARE A MERCHANT! And merchants & their activities are the object & subject of civil commerce and the private civil jurisdiction of law merchant. And BTW, thats exactly what the yellow fringed flag represents, law merchant!

“We may have democracy or we may have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” –Louis Brandeis, Former Supreme Court Justice


"Sovereignty is an entire thing — to divide, is — to destroy it." --John C. Calhoun

BarnacleBob, Yesterday at 11:11 PM

When you read our local Traffic Laws and the Traffic Code, it has a definition of Traffic. The movement of goods or persons for a fee. Doesn't get more plain than that.

I'm sure I've got a book on Lex Mercatoria somewhere... can't seem to put my hands on it. Will look for it tomorrow at my workplace. The Practice and Jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty is also a good read.

Google has a book called "Consuentudo vel Lex Mercatoria" or the Ancient Law Merchant divided in to 3 parts according to the Essential Parts of Traffick. Necessary for all Statesmen, Judges and Magistrates.

Free Trade agreements like NAFTA are extensions of the concept of Staples or designated ports where by the Law of Merchants applies and particular codification applies. They might use an existing codification as a template such as UNIDROIT or Roman Canonical rules.

Somewhere on here is the post about the Highway and how certain centres or depots are setup. I can't find the post but it should be read in conjunction with this information as they are these Staple ports....inland but connected by highways - inland water ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

Agreed, no one has the stomach for Revolution. Even if there were one, the sheep are so mindlessly stupid that we would end up with a pure Democracy instead of Republic.

---

They aren't sheep. They are asleep and dreaming. Nobody wants to awaken a deep dreamer or a sleep walker. They tend to do violent things because they think they are still in the dream. Then you face the problem of those who are half awake. They make irrational decisions because they don't completely have a grasp on reality.

For perspective it would appear that the libs and democrats are in rem sleep mode. The republicans are in half awake mode and know something is wrong but still believe they can be half awake and can make a difference to the world of the ones still sleeping.

If you are fully awake you agree with everyone and survive.

If the deep sleepers cannot exist without Obamacare maybe it would be best to keep it just for them. This could be used to identify those who believe in insurance and those who are responsible.

Quote:

---

Congressional Record: June 13, 1967, pp. 15641-15646—— “A “citizen of the United States” is a civilly dead entity operating as a co-trustee and co-beneficiary of the PCT (Public Charitable Trust set up for the welfare of freed plantation slaves in the wake of the Civil War), the private constructive, cestui que vie trust of US Inc. under the 14th Amendment, which upholds the debt of the USA and US Inc. in Section 4.

---

Quoted for substance...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

Quoted for substance...

---

whats the substance?

The Supreme Court Justices have taken both oaths.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/o...court2009.aspx

That quoted statement may be true and is a result of the 14th amendment, but does not appear anywhere in the constutionality of the 14th amendment argument in the Congressional Record pages 15641 - 15646 of June 13, 1967.

http://www.14th-amendment.com/Histor..._Amendment.pdf

I have also found "quoted" US Supreme Court decisons on the internet turn out to be false when you read the actual decisions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

That quoted statement may be true and is a result of the 14th amendment, but does not appear anywhere in the constutionality of the 14th amendment argument in the Congressional Record pages 15641 - 15646 of June 13, 1967.

http://www.14th-amendment.com/Histor..._Amendment.pdf

I have also found "quoted" US Supreme Court decisons on the internet turn out to be false when you read the actual decisions.

---

Did you read through the full document? Searching for keywords doesn't work with scanned documents. Try it for yourself, I've tried on 2 different platforms with 4 different PDF readers and I can't even search for words that are clearly in the document. Amendment, record, etc. If I get the time this weekend I'll try to read through the full document and see if that quote is in there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

Did you read through the full document? Searching for keywords doesn't work with scanned documents. Try it for yourself, I've tried on 2 different platforms with 4 different PDF readers and I can't even search for words that are clearly in the document. Amendment, record, etc. If I get the time this weekend I'll try to read through the full document and see if that quote is in there.

---

Yes. I reread it again this morning to see if I had missed it. There is a better copy here

http://www.rayservers.com/images/Con...er_7_pages.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

Yes. I reread it again this morning to see if I had missed it. There is a better copy here

http://www.rayservers.com/images/Con...er_7_pages.pdf

---

Much better copy. Thank you!!!!

I also read it yesterday and did not find the quote. I read it a second time to make sure I didn't miss it before posting my question.

I read this version: http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/14amrec/14amrec.pdf

The record is of a debate conducted about the legality of the passing of the 14th amendment but not the content or purpose of it. It isn't actually the place of the Congress to debate the purpose or function of an amendment to the constitution, or any element of it for that matter, only that the procedure proscribed by it is followed and that any part of the constitution as written and ratified, is upheld by those in sworn office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glass

I also read it yesterday and did not find the quote. I read it a second time to make sure I didn't miss it before posting my question.

I read this version: http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/14amrec/14amrec.pdf

The record is of a debate conducted about the legality of the passing of the 14th amendment but not the content or purpose of it. It isn't actually the place of the Congress to debate the purpose or function of an amendment to the constitution, or any element of it for that matter, only that the procedure proscribed by it is followed and that any part of the constitution as written and ratified, is upheld by those in sworn office.

---

I read part of it, and the congressman makes a good point about the Southern states being excluded from the ratification process so the amendment should of never passed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

I read part of it, and the congressman makes a good point about the Southern states being excluded from the ratification process so the amendment should of never passed.

---

About the only point he missed is that Oregon recinded their ratification after it was discovered two of their legislators that voted for ratification had been elected by fraud. The recision was after the Secretary of State had declared the amendment had been ratified.

Yep, Anna seems to post a lot of stuff that can't be found in the online record.

I have read that in order to really read the real record one has to go to one of these regional law library's, where they have all the books from the time they were first published. Sort of like once published they don't disappear. Unless someone replaces the book with a new one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

About the only point he missed is that Oregon recinded their ratification after it was discovered two of their legislators that voted for ratification had been elected by fraud. The recision was after the Secretary of State had declared the amendment had been ratified.

---

The 14th Amendment was basically declared as it clearly did not have the majority to do it. Same with the 17th Amendment. All states are guaranteed equal suffrage, so if any of them refused the amendment is void and there were 5 states (if I remember correctly) who did not ratify the 17th Amendment.

That is true. I think it was a man named Bill Benson who checked the archives in all the states to verify that.

Email from Dr. Trowbridge:

Re: Oaths of Office Taken by the Current Court

Keep watching my website — MORE coming shortly and SHARE widely, so theword gets out!!!!


Thanks!~

John Parks Trowbridge, Jr.
Liberty Above All
The End of the Hoax of Federal Usurpation: www.supremecourtcase.wordpress.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

The 14th Amendment was basically declared as it clearly did not have the majority to do it. Same with the 17th Amendment. All states are guaranteed equal suffrage, so if any of them refused the amendment is void and there were 5 states (if I remember correctly) who did not ratify the 17th Amendment.

---

http://www.wnd.com/2005/02/28776/

“Take time to deliberate; but when the time for action arrives, stop thinking and go in.
– President Andrew Jackson

The courage and wisdom of those who birthed this Republic was nothing short of a magnificent event in the history of the world. When creating the federal government, it was imperative that the colonies (later called states) and the people be represented fairly. The method decided upon was the people would vote for their voice – a representative to serve in the House of Representatives.

The states of the Union would each have an equal number of U.S. Senators (fixed at two), appointed by their state legislature to represent the interests of the state. Should that U.S. senator fail in their job, the legislature would recall them and appoint a new one. The decision to have the states appoint their U.S. senators was very calculated.

All of that changed with the fraudulent ratification of the 17th Amendment. U.S. senators would now be elected. The states lost their suffrage rights, they no longer had any representation in Washington, D.C., and the federal machine has walked all over them since.

This issue is one of the most important problems facing this nation today, yet few know anything about it. Last summer, I prepared a working paper for Rep. Henry McElroy of the New Hampshire state Legislature on the history of this amendment and why it is imperative the states step forward and force a constitutional showdown. For those who might knee jerk this would cause constitutional chaos, I can’t highly recommend enough Judge Andrew Napolitano’s excellent book,
“Constitutional Chaos.” We’re already in constitutional chaos and the situation will only continue to deteriorate without immediate action.

The 17th Amendment was never properly ratified. I have seen the proof with my own eyes at the National Archives and from the documents obtained by Bill Benson from all 48 state legislatures in his work, “Proof the 17th Amendment Was Not Ratified.” I also collected court certified documents on this from the bowels of the California State Archives. They are incontrovertible and prove without question that Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan, on May 31, 1913, knowingly and willfully issued a memo declaring the 17th Amendment ratified even though he knew the required number of states did not ratify it.

The courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court have been very specific on the rigid requirements for ratification. There can be no mistake fraud was committed and that every U.S. senator since 1913 sits in office under a law that does not exist. U.S. senators ratify treaties, confirm federal judges, U.S. Supreme Court justices and hold impeachment trials. Legally, our participation in the United Nations, every destructive trade treaty, i.e., NAFTA, GATT, Roe v. Wade and any other legislative acts committed by U.S. senators these past 92 years are invalid.

The courts refuse to touch this issue because they don’t have the backbone. While several states have introduced resolutions to nix the 17th Amendment (introduced by patriotic representatives and killed by Republicans in every instance), realistically, there’s no question this current crop of Congress will never do the right thing. Therefore, it is up to the people and the states of the Union.

The people must get the proof and begin a systematic assault (non violent, of course) on their state legislatures to appoint two U.S. senators to represent them and send them to Washington, D.C. This will force the issue into a court of law where it should have gone decades ago.

Please feel free to use the working paper I prepared for Rep. McElroy for your state rep and senator. They will soon realize that it is to their utmost advantage to press this issue and for the sake of our Republic, this challenge must be made to restore the balance between the states and the people. America is not a democracy of mob rule, but that’s exactly what has happened with the election of U.S. senators.

Without question this is a Herculean task, but it can be done. If you know your state representative or state senator will play politics and ignore this fraud, then run for their seat. We only need one state legislature to find the courage to stand up to this lie and make their move. Make a commitment to oust any state legislator or senator who refuses to undertake this fight. We must replace these bad employees with ones who will get the job done or America is going down.

The destiny of this Republic lies in the hands of we the people. There are millions of active Americans in 28,000 citizens groups. It’s time to focus on specific issues killing our beloved nation – invasion by illegals, unconstitutional cabinets, unconstitutional spending – get organized and throw out the same old career politicians at every level of government and get true constitutionalists elected who will have the guts to get this Republic back on course. I leave by asking you this: Are we a nation of laws or lies? We cannot be both and survive.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2005/02/28776/#bIuq3jwUKEwlJQBA.99

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

That is true. I think it was a man named Bill Benson who checked the archives in all the states to verify that.

---

I exchanged emails with Bill Benson and found out he was a Dane. I chided him for mispelling his name as a proper Dane uses "sen" instead of "son". Now all good Scandinavians know we have to keep these name spellings straight so we know who to believe. Benson = Norsk, Bensen = Dansk, Bensson = Svensk.

I believe he and Red Beckman went around the country tracking down the 16th amendment.